Get updates from Catholic and Enjoying It! delivered straight to your inbox
…that crazy racist conservatives use to describe sane conservatives who are not racist enough.
Erickson is correct about the despicable implications of the term, with one caveat: He gives the term a theological spin by calling it “a slur against Christian voters coined by white-supremacists.” There is no specific Christian implication to the term, and the white supremacists who used it were just as likely to be Christians (if not as Christian in an adjectival sense) as the people they used it against.
The term serves the same purpose as the slinging of “homophobe” does: to radicalize moderates via the threat of out-grouping. “Civil society” is at the middle-school level; expect an even more amusing counter-salvo.
You ever wonder why Erick Erickson’s parents stopped at only two Ericks? Shoulda middle-named him Erick, too. In for a penny, in for a pound.
“The Ballad of Erick Erick son of Erick” does have a nice ring to it.
“But a good many conservative folk in 1986, finding themselves only second-best in the pursuit of stupidity, try harder.”
Russell Kirk must have accidentally written 1986 instead of 2015 😉 Further, he admonishes “that thinking folk of conservative views ought to reject the embraces of the following categories of political zealots: … various other gentry who abjure liberalism but are capable of conserving nothing worth keeping.” Doubtless, that admonishment will be ever in some minds as the 2016 spectacle of demagoguery presents itself.
Maybe I’m engaging in a ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy, but it rather seems to me that just the term ‘conservative’ doesn’t have much meaning in this sense anymore. Who gets to define it?
Does my post yesterday regarding immigration make me a ‘cuckservative’ (for admitting that I actually get a LOT of benefit from it), or a racist (because I point out that it may have some bad consequences down the road)? Do I get a say in that or is my label to be assigned to me by someone else?
Obviously Mark Shea gets to define it, at least here, and I’m spitting mad at his current definition above which implicitly divides conservatives into the really racist and the “not racist enough”, mad enough that I really ought to wait and cool down before I say much more directly to him.
Take your time.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Now you, on the other hand, are funny.
Thank you. I enjoy spreading mirth. On a more serious note, don’t you think your protest would be seen as earnest rather than amusing if you would refrain from labeling anything even an inch to the left of yourself as socialist, stealth socialist or plain Bolshevik?
No, you’re still funny.
Please. The operative phrase is “sane conservatives”.
I read libels of conservatives daily. It comes with the territory when you don’t want to fall into epistemic closure in the political world.
What you did falls squarely in the sly mainstream of the dreck I page through every few days in order to uncover the few worthwhile points the other side actually raises.
As for cuckservative itself, it’s a fairly ugly term, right up there with cuckoo birds, a term made famous by Sen. McCain in describing his more conservative colleagues. In other words, both sides are getting nasty in the GOP civil war. I don’t like it, but I do try to exercise charity and have, up until now, considered it a neologism meant to update the very old exhortation by hard core believers that moderates should “grow a pair” rather than assuming than going to the idea that it’s racist.
Racism? Like “#BlackLivesMatter”? Tribalism? Like “#LoveWins”? I thought you were for equality, Mark.
Racism? Just to be fair, the “#BlackLivesMatter” implies the suffix “also”. Of course everyone agree that ALL lives matter, they just aren’t treated that way. BTW, I would also add #UnbornLivesMatter to the mix as well.
“Just to be fair, the “#BlackLivesMatter” implies the suffix “also”.”
– Eh… considering the reactions I see to people who say that (implying the ‘all lives matter’), I don’t think your assumption can be considered anywhere NEAR universal.
So, you *actually believe that when people say “black lives matter” that they mean “only black lives matter” instead of “black lives matter also”??
No. I think many people mean, based just on what they say to me in various discussion forms, ‘Special consideration’.
Was it Bernie Sanders who was chased from his podium when he responded like you do, that all lives matter?
In fairness, the “All Lives Matter” is, I believe seen as an attempt to undermine the message that is trying to be communicated by “Black Lives Matter”; that message is that our society has devalued black lives for too long and that they are frequently victims of injustice at the hands of the government. Ultimately I see this kind of like the Church’s preferential option for the poor; it doesn’t mean that others don’t matter, but that the individual group of people need more help than others.
” by “Black Lives Matter”; that message is that our society has devalued black lives for too long and that they are frequently victims of injustice at the hands of the government.”
– Yeah, people ‘say’ that, but I really have to wonder if they actually believe it.
Some probably do. Others probably don’t. Humans are funny like that, not lining up into neat groups.
You’ve got a heavy burden to carry in this argument. Can you tell me why did the governor of Maryland get put down when he said “black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter”?
What we had when the former governor of Maryland got put down when he said, “Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter” was failure to communicate. The rhetoric did not translate. O’Malley was having a different conversation than the people who were chanting “Black lives matter” were having.
Are you quoting cool hand luke?
I am indeed quoting Cool Hand Luke. I wasn’t going as far as imagining Martin O’Malley as Paul Newman and his hecklers as Strother Martin, but come to think of it, O’Malley might improve his chances if he changes his campaign slogan to, “I can eat fifty eggs.”
And Hillary can go suck an egg.
Nobody eva et fifty eggs!
I didn’t see the exchange, but I would point out that saying on the heels of “black lives matter” that “all lives matter” dismisses the message that currently it seems that black lives don’t matter. Of course all lives matter! All lives should matter, but until black lives actually matter, all lives don’t currently matter in reality.
I don’t quite know where to fit in abortion on a severity list of killing black people but I think police killings is at most number three on the list. Black lives matter people have nothing to say about black criminals which are number one on the list. Given that unfortunate situation, it is hard to respect these phonies.
Implications: if it is okay for a race to use racial identity markers as a rally point then it is okay for any race to use racial identity markers as a rallying point. That’s equality.
I would be less concerned with bumper sticker phrases, and more concerned about the situations that motivated them to be created and embraced in the first place.
Please, do show the way Mister-implied-“also” . . .
I guess that makes you Mister-implied-“only”. Which is so uncharitable, I don’t really see any value in continuing to engage with you.
Spoken like a true far right conservative. We’re not that bad because somebody else is also doing something wrong somewhere else so we’re justified in behaving as bad or worse then the people that we’re constantly criticizing.
Why are you against equality?
I’m not against equality I’m against people defending their behavior by seeking out some other behavior that they see as worse than their own behavior. It’s childish and illogical. Someone is always doing something worse. It’s from the Ann Coulter playbook. It’s an attempt to defect the attention away from the original point so they start to discuss the other behavior. You were successful as the other comments followed along.
Equality is free of value judgements—there is no “better”, there is no “worse”. Put another way, sometimes a hashtag is just a hashtag.
Anecdotal, I know, but more often than not I’ve personally heard the term leveled at conservatives accused of selling out to feminism. I have trouble making the leap to racism–I guess I just need to refine my ability to know others’ hearts.
I’m not defending the label (it’s non-constructively mean and dismissive even if it’s not racist), just accusing the author of this piece of being as reductive, mean-spirited, and ideologically divorced from the truth as those “racists” he calls out for using it. He sounds just like the online lynch mobs who called people racist for using the term “niggardly” several years back. I mean, we all know what they REALLY meant.
It’s all just mud slinging.
Yup—the article is pretty clear: if your wife commits adultery with a man not of her race, you’d best not object for fear of being out-grouped as a racist; just man up and embrace her embracing her sexuality.
To get a handle on this term, you need to be familiar with the manosphere, and the pickup-artist community, and the Red Pill on Reddit, and groups of this nature.
It’s sort of important to listen to what they are saying that has value, because they are saying something very important and crucial to social understanding. It is essentially Catholicism from the other side. They have correctly identified why social liberalism doesn’t work, and in secular language. It’s almost as if the devil came out behind the curtain of lies and said, OK, when you abandon the truth of God and don’t do what God tells you, you are easy to deceive and we are able to trick you this way and that way and make you believe this and that, all of which are total nonsense, and we do so for our own purposes.
Conservatives, essentially, according to this manosphere community, are selling out to a socially liberal program (just slower) that doesn’t work. They are giving in, hence, cuckolded. It’s a fancy way of saying you are a nancy-boy. Stand up to liberal, stand up to feminists.
The answer, IMHO, is to recognize what they are saying that has value. Ignore the rest.
I have read one of the leading purveyors of PUA and the cuckservative term admit that without birth control and antibiotics, his lifestyle would be impossible and he wouldn’t pursue it.
That said, they are steadily going off the deep end. It’s a shame. But while what they had to say had value, it wasn’t immersed in a sound intellectual structure that could help them understand the moral implications of what they were saying.
And it’s less about race than about women. The sexual revolution, they believe, has created perverse incentives for men.
So, is the racial part there at all? I’m not going to google the term to check whether it is actually associated with the filth he says it is. It seems like an excellent way to ensure that minority conservatives (like my husband) decide that they have no place on the conservative side of things.
These folks are not conservatives. They are attacking conservatives from a different direction. Essentially, they think that things are FUBAR given the current state of relations between the sexes.
Yes, there is a racist part to it. It is unapologetically racist against African Americans. The term cuckservative is often used to smear those conservatives (which I would say is all of us) who are in favor of integration. These people think it’s a lost cause, and believe that science shows that African-Americans have genetic intelligence levels and genetic impulse-control levels that are too low to conduct themselves productively in a first-world country (as a whole, not as individuals). Basically, they say African-Americans are the only racial group that can’t police themselves and pay their own way, and that shrinking from this fact leads to dishonest social policy and dishonest social conversations.
No True Scotsmen are crazy racists.
… because segregationists and conservatives are the same thing. /sarcasm.
Ugh. I am reminded of all the “scientific” attempts to prove that Africans HAD to be slaves because they couldn’t function otherwise. We spend a section of my physical anthropology class going over why it was all bull-pucky.
MRA/PUAs never had anything of value to say.
nothing at all … just a total waste of time and space and oxygen … please ignore everything they have to say.
After looking at a few of the comments in the linked article, it reminds me of those faux “conservatives” who tell stories about “lyin’ African” and “Muslim Kenyan socialist” and then get offended when you tell them their “conservatism” consists of being mad there is a black man in the White House.
At least bigots and racists in this century have the decency to be ashamed of it and pay the homage of hypocrisy.
gee…where is the post denouncing the prez for repeatedly calling those who disagree with his policies..teabaggers…oh well…he is an ancillary figure and the democratic party is so awesome bringing everyone together and solving all the worlds problems.
wait…i keep forgetting Christ came to only call some people to repent.
Where would the Party of Personal Responsbility without blameshifting and denial?
nope not blame shifting..I have no problem with anyone holding both parties accountable…that is true responsibility.
I do have a problem when only one side is held to account…St Paul was called to be all things to all. We have too many catholics, both in the laity and the clergy, who have committed themselves to become all things to some. Even worse, some have decided to level the valleys and build up the mountains. They consider themselves prophets, true followers, who truely understand like no one else, but they merely parrot the spirit of age.
I agree with responsibility – let’s remember the tea party itself started calling themselves teabaggers first – lets teabag the democrats before they teabag America. No one should speak of themselves. or others in this fashion – this includes calling people socialist, fascist and the like.
yeah that sounds like a great story…can you now tell me how Rick Santorum turned his own name into a sex act?
btw if “some” people were referring to themselves in such a fashion this doesn’t justify the most powerful person in the world denigrating the entire group.
Not a story about the tea party, I never said that there aren’t a$$holes so I don’t know about Santorum – I would say then that if you think Obama is the most powerful,person in the world then conservatives wouldn’t lie about him being a Muslim or being a liar. He did it first to what three year olds say when they are caught – I would have thought that a conservative would have been beyond that – ah well.
Never heard the term. So, being lazy, I googled it and found out that it’s yet another term being used to smear someone. Why are they smeared? The most common, and from what I found perhaps the original, reasons were for those conservative men who caved to liberal feminist demands. Who sounded more like the liberal man who debases himself before the superiority of the female. Others clearly came to use it against conservatives who weren’t racist, or weren’t homophobic, or anything else enough. In short, it’s a term that, to my ears, is rather lame. It’s used by different people for different reasons. Just like the phrase brought up below ‘Black Lives Matter’. We all know what it means. But let’s face it, how much weight does language have today when a politician can be shouted off a stage for merely saying all lives matter? Do we really spend much time focusing on the nuances of language nowadays?
Why bring such obscure nonsense to light?
Because it’s getting less obscure and more noisy.
Just like DE? No, it’s not.